AI critiques
Storymakers reviews of every deck.
Each deck reviewed by an AI editor through the Storymakers lens — narrative arc, opening hook, closing call-to-action, and action-title quality. With a one-line verdict, top strengths and weaknesses, and three concrete fixes per deck.
1086 reviewed decks
· mean 61.6
· click a bar to filter
Search by prescribed fix
most common opening verb across 3405 suggestionsFiltered reviewed decks
89 matching · page 2 / 4
72
title quality
Polish Digital Index
“A competently structured benchmark study with strong quantified action titles in the middle, but it skips the upfront thesis and ends in a credentials pitch — use pp.12-18 as a teaching example for declarative titles, not the overall arc.”
↓ No upfront thesis slide: the 'A. Synthesis' divider (p.3) is followed by a study-description (p.4) rather than a one-sentence answer to 'so what'
72
title quality
2019 APAC Hospital Priority Study Overview
“A competent analytical-overview deck with strong action titles in the body but a weak opening and a missing resolution — useful as a teaching example for headline writing on data slides, not as a Storymakers exemplar of full narrative arc.”
↓ No resolution: deck ends on an open question (p.10) and contact slide (p.11) with zero recommendations or implications for MedTech players
72
title quality
A NEW WORLD DISORDER?
“A well-disciplined annual research report with a memorable opening and consistent per-section structure, but it ends in 'observations' rather than a recommendation — useful as a Storymakers exemplar for thesis-led openings and action-title craft, weak as an exemplar for closing arcs and call-to-action.”
↓ No real recommendation/resolution — p.114 'Every crisis can be an opportunity' is the only 'state_next_steps' slide in 121 pages and offers no specific action
72
title quality
PUBLIC TRUST IN AI: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND REGULATION
“A competent five-act research report with a clear spine and several genuinely declarative slide titles, but the soft opening, noun-phrase dividers, and principle-level closing keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — use the risks/benefits section (p.11–14) as the teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening burns four slides on cover/intro/TOC/takeaways before any evidence (p.1–4); a Storymakers opener would collapse these and lead with the answer
72
title quality
Delivering on construction productivity is no longer optional
“A well-opened, well-quantified problem statement that abdicates its own conclusion — use slides 1-7 as a teaching example for stakes-setting and action titles, but not as a complete Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No recommendation slide — p.10 asks 'What will it take to improve productivity?' but the deck ends without answering
72
title quality
Creating the best SME Debt finance ecosystem
“A structurally exemplary three-act consulting deck with strong diagnostic action titles, but it hedges its recommendations and wastes its executive summary headers — use Section 1 as the teaching example for action-titled diagnosis, not the closing as a recommendation template.”
↓ Executive summary slides 4-8 use pagination titles ('EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1/5…5/5') instead of carrying the five claims they contain — the most expensive real estate in the deck wasted
72
title quality
2020 Effie UK Report • In partnership withIpsos
“A competently structured industry-report deck with strong action titles and good evidence pairing, but it never leads with the answer and ends in a contact card — use its title craft and case-pairing rhythm as the teaching example, not its overall narrative arc.”
↓ No thesis upfront: p.4 and p.40 are both labelled 'EXECUTIVE SUMMARY' but neither callout reveals a synthesised answer — the deck never tells you in one sentence what the 2020 effectiveness story is.
72
title quality
What The Future Intelligence
“A thought-leadership magazine with strong action titles and a crisp thesis, but it diagnoses endlessly and never prescribes — useful as a teaching example of declarative slide titles and data-driven build-up, not as a model for Storymakers arc or closing.”
↓ No resolution act — the deck has no 'so what / now what' slide; last substantive page (p41 'Future optimism gaps') diagnoses rather than recommends
72
title quality
cb q1 2024 ie outlook report
“A competent JPM market-outlook brief with strong individual action titles but no narrative resolution — use slides 4, 6, 8 as title-writing exemplars, not the overall structure.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so-what' slide — the deck ends on p.14 with an unresolved question and then a disclaimer
72
title quality
20190312 Deutsche Bank MIT Conference
“A competent investor deck with disciplined action titles in the analytical middle, but it opens with label slides and fades out into repeated 'Announced Acquisitions' tables — useful as a teaching example for quantified titles and three-pillar structure, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ Three near-identical slide titles 'Announced Acquisitions' at p.33-35 — a cardinal Storymakers sin of topic-labeling over insight
71
title quality
Deloitte Business Agility Survey 2021 A pulse check of business agility in the Nordics
“A competent survey-report deck with a real thesis and a landed recommendation, but structured as an analytical tour rather than a tight Storymakers arc — useful as a teaching example for action-title writing in the motivation section (pp.14-17), not as a model for opening discipline or MECE pillar design.”
↓ Opening buries the thesis inside a 3-part executive summary (pp.5-7) instead of stating the answer on p.2 or p.3
70
title quality
The Quantum Technology Monitor December 2020
“A competent state-of-the-market monitor with strong declarative analytical titles but no thesis up front and no recommendation at the end — use the middle slides as a teaching example for action-title craft, not the structure as a Storymakers exemplar.”
↓ No explicit thesis on slides 1-3 — the reader has to wait until p.4 to learn the deck's point of view
70
title quality
Insurance Trends Growth Poland
“A solid analytical trends primer with strong opening framing and decent action titles, but it never resolves into a recommendation — useful as an exemplar of opening stakes-setting and quantified titles, not of full Storymakers arc.”
↓ No recommendation slide — closes on 'Topics for the debate' (p.24), leaving the audience without an answer
70
title quality
The age of Generative AI: Unveiling the next frontier of digital procurement
“A solid McKinsey thought-leadership deck with strong individual titles and a clean two-pillar back half, but a context-heavy opening and a soft 'Closing note' close make it a useful teaching example for action-title craft, not for Storymakers narrative architecture.”
↓ Opening (pp.1–5) is pure context with no thesis — reader must wait 5+ slides for the point
70
title quality
Elevating internal audit’s role: The digitally fitfunction 2019 State of the Internal Audit Profession Study
“A competent thought-leadership deck with a clean three-pillar build and disciplined 'Dynamics' protagonist framing, but soft stakes, a delayed thesis, and quote-slide padding keep it from being a Storymakers exemplar — useful for teaching action-title discipline and protagonist framing, not for narrative tension or BLUF openings.”
↓ Soft complication — no slide quantifies the cost of being non-Dynamic (the 81% who aren't), so stakes never sharpen
68
title quality
Modern Networks
“A structurally sound three-imperative consulting argument with strong quantified action titles in the middle — teach the p.17-32 resolution arc as the exemplar, but flag the buried opening and generic CTA as the anti-patterns to fix.”
↓ Opening buries the lede — p.1 cover and p.2-3 cases arrive before the thesis on p.4-5, costing the reader the first 4 pages
68
title quality
Technology Trust Ethics Preparing the workforce for ethical, responsible, and trustworthy AI: C-suite perspectives
“A competent survey-findings report with strong stat-led slide titles but weak narrative architecture — useful as a teaching example for action titles at the slide level, not for deck-level Storymakers structure.”
↓ No Complication/tension act — the deck never states why ethical AI readiness is urgent or what goes wrong without it
68
title quality
APAC Family Office Study
“A competent thought-leadership study with strong analytical-section action titles but a weak narrative spine - useful as a teaching example for action titles and pull-quotes, not for opening or closing craft.”
↓ Opening trio (p.1-3) is pure front matter - no thesis, no stakes, no hook before p.5
68
title quality
The Future of Procurement: Why is Technology Lagging Behind?
“A solid analytical middle wrapped in a bloated front-matter and a vendor-plus-change-mgmt tail — useful as a teaching example for action titles in the p.14–25 run, but not a Storymakers exemplar for overall arc, opening, or close.”
↓ Five-slide front-matter runway (p.1–5) before any argument; no thesis-forward opener
68
title quality
The%20CEO%20Macro%20Briefing%20Book%20 %20Insights%20for%20Dealmakers
“A data-rich macro briefing with sharp metrics and some genuine action titles, but it stops at analysis and never delivers the 'insights for dealmakers' the cover promises — useful as a teaching example for quantitative anchoring, not for narrative resolution.”
↓ No recommendation or 'so what for dealmakers' slide — the deck title promises 'Insights for Dealmakers' but ends at p.10 with an open question
66
title quality
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)
“A rigorous, MECE-disciplined UK government-policy advisory deck with an admirably explicit recommendation thread - use the numbered-pillars structure (10 practicalities, 8 options) and the recommendation->timeline close as Storymakers teaching examples, but not the overall arc, which buries the rail-industry context in an end-of-deck appendix and opens too slowly to surface the thesis.”
↓ Background-on-the-industry section (p.134-170, 37 slides) sits at the END rather than the front, so context that should have set up the stakes instead trails the recommendation and dilutes the close
66
title quality
Investor Day Presentation 140623 FINAL
“A disciplined, well-structured investor-relations deck with strong metric-anchored action titles in the middle, but it buries its thesis at the open and dissolves into a topic label and dial-in numbers at the close — useful as a teaching example for the Growth Plan vertical pages, not for opening or closing structure.”
↓ Opening defers the thesis: takes through p7 to land 'Raison d'Être' and through p17 to articulate the client-trust proof point — no answer-first slide in the first three pages.
66
title quality
Barclays Q12023 FI Presentation
“Bank fixed-income IR deck with disciplined action titles in the performance core but no narrative spine and no closing ask — useful as a teaching example of declarative title-writing on financial slides, not as a Storymakers story-arc exemplar.”
↓ No closing synthesis — deck ends at ESG ratings (p.48) and an appendix (p.49-51) with zero recap, recommendation, or call to action for FI investors
64
title quality
UNC Chapel Hill Cost Diagnostic
“A competent Bain diagnostic with a clear options inventory but soft narrative framing and lazy pagination titles — use p.14 as a teaching example of an insight-bearing title, not the overall structure.”
↓ Opening buries the lead: 5 slides of front-matter before the key findings on p.6